Kanter v. Barr - 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019)

Rule:

The felon dispossession statutes are substantially related to the important governmental objective of keeping firearms away those convicted of serious crimes. Where a plaintiff was convicted of a serious federal felony for conduct broadly understood to be criminal, his challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) is without merit. 

Facts:

On May 24, 2011, Rickey Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law. Kanter brought suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m) are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to him. The United States moved to dismiss his claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and Wisconsin moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). In response, Kanter moved for summary judgment, arguing that his status as a nonviolent offender with no other criminal record meant that both statutes were unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court granted defendants' motions and denied Kanter's motion. In so doing, the district court held that, even assuming felons are entitled to Second Amendment protection, the application of the federal and Wisconsin felon dispossession laws to Kanter is substantially related to the government's important interest in preventing gun violence. The court reasoned that Congress and the Wisconsin legislature are entitled to categorically disqualify all felons—even nonviolent felons like Kanter—because both have found that such individuals are more likely to abuse firearms. The court also noted that this "bright line categorical approach ... allows for uniform application and ease of administration." The district court entered judgment on January 2, 2018, and this appeal followed.

Issue:

Did the felon dispossession statutes—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m)—violate the Second Amendment as applied to Kanter?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the felon dispossession statutes, 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m), did not violate the Second Amendment as applied to Kanter because they were substantially related to an important government interest of keeping firearms away those convicted of serious crimes.